Nicolas wrote:
>The equivalent resolution of a fine film is about 4,000x3,000. But let's
>accept a lower resolution, e.g. 1600x1200 like what is found on modern
>digital cameras. If you want to keep that quality at 300mm by using
>digital zooming, you need a 24,000x18,000 sensor! That is, a 432 Mega
>Pixels CCD. Honestly, I do not think it is for tomorrow. And the figures
>are even worse for real photographic quality. If a 24x36mm sensor size
>is considered, it means that each pixel (which is made of a transistor)
>should be less than 1,5 micron in size!!!
>It may come one day, but not anytime soon.
>Nicolas.
Nicolas,
1.5 micron technology is old technology in the semiconductor business. I
work for Intel Corp., and I can tell you that we are currently
manufacturing microprocessors using .25 micron technology, and that we will
be using .18 micron technology within 2 years.
The biggest problem is the overall size of the sensor. A 24x36mm sensor has
a diagonal measurement of about 43mm. This is nearly twice the size that
can be reliably manufactured, due to the optics in the photolithography
process. (They're Nikon, by the way.)
The other big problem alluded to in your message is that the image storage
requirement is not economically viable. Storage for a 24x36mm, 864Megapixel
(1-micron/pixel) image would be unmanageable, physically, electrically and
financally.
Best regards,
Stew
--
Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart
UNIX: It's not just 'User-Unfriendly', it's 'Proactively User-Hostile'!
Nothing generates so much silence as confronting a person with an
undeniable truth which is contrary to that person's beliefs.
Manual cameras, Luna-Pro's and stick shifts.
